April 25, 2008

All Politics Is Local

I may be cogent to the point of cryptic on this interesting question raised by Jason Zengerle of TNR, who wonders why the North Carolina Republican Party wants to run an Obama-basher:

What they didn't mention at all is that the North Carolina GOP ad is intended to help Hillary in the May 6 primary. I mean, if the NC GOP really wanted the ad to help McCain, wouldn't they be running this ad in October or November? This is clearly an attempt to play the race and the Wright card against Obama in the hopes of hurting him in the Democratic Primary. Which suggests that there are at least some Republicans out there who still think Obama is the more formidable general election candidate.

Well, yes and no... let's posit that the North Carolina Republicans have an obvious rooting interest in the Presidential race but will really live or die by the outcome of the Gubernatorial race in North Carolina. What their strategists ought to do is assess the relative abilities of Obama and Hillary to enlist and energize Democrats in North Carolina, and try to influence the primary toward the Democrats less likely to hurt Republican prospects in their Governor's race this fall. Not surprisingly, they seem to have concluded that Obama will hurt them more in November - the obvious explanation would be his ability to fire up the college towns and black communities of the state.

However! That does not mean that these North Carolinians have placed any weight on Obama's national prospects or even have an informed opinion about it. As many have noted, Obama and Hillary appeal to very different groups, and bring a different list of states into play in the general election.

So there may be Republicans in, for example, West Virginia, who are very keen to see Obama on the ticket this fall because he will have negligible coattails in their state and will not hurt their prospects in state and local races as much as Hillary might. In such a scenario, we might see Republicans in North Carolina putting up Obama-bashers at the same time that Republicans in West Virginia are airing Hillary-bashers.

McCain's strategists will be interested in optimizing their candidates chance of winning nationally, so they will calculate some sort of net national benefit - if their preferred candidate is Hillary, they might strive to quash the Obama-basher and wink at the other one.

Now, for the truly obsessed - this framework could be extended to Republican House and Senate leaders. Suppose Republican Senate leaders look at their map of Senate seats in play this cycle. They may conclude that more of their critical seats are in states where Obama is likely to boost Dem turnout, in which case they would try to steer the nomination towards Hillary.

House Republicans would look at their own map of Congressional districts in play, and there is no particular reason to think their preferred Democratic national leader would be the same as their Senate counterparts. Obama on the ticket might imperil some urban, Red State Republican Congressman, or make vulnerable a suburban working class Blue State Democrat; Hillary would do something quite different. I have made no attempt to research the "in-play" House and Senate seats but it is plausible that the House and Senate Republican leaders would actually reach opposite conclusions as to their preferred candidate.

And do note, neither the House nor Senate leaders are, in this stripped down model, placing any value on a McCain victory. A very odd but possible result is that the Senate and House Republican leadership unite behind the idea that they have better prospects of picking up the actual seats in play with Hillary on the Democratic ticket, even as the McCain team concludes it has a better chance of beating Obama. That's because McCain is evaluating the national Electoral College map while the House and Senate are looking at (different) reduced, seats-in-play maps that would reflect the very different appeals of Hillary and Obama.

Last gasp - if the Republicans were interested in a unified optimization, they would assign a value to each of a series of alternative outcomes. One approach would be to create eight mutually exclusive categories, assign probabilities summing to one, put a value on each outcome, and evaluate the result based on the probabilities associated with (a) Obama as the opponent, or (b) Hillary as the opponent.

and so on through four more "McCain loses" scenarios. The eight probabilities will sum to one, and any synergies can be incorporated into the value of that scenario - e.g., control of the Senate is worth 10 points, control of the House is worth 8 points, but control of both is worth 22 points.

Dem superdelegates "ought to" be performing a similar calculation. And in the expanded model, where other outcomes than winning the White House have value, it may be that a reduced probability of victory in the Presidential is more than offset by improved House and Senate prospects.

An even bolder vision would incorporate Gubernatorial races, and good luck with that. My proposed model is already at the point known as The Scientification of Non-Knowledge. It's interesting to quantify assumptions and see how they interact, but at some point, the numbers themselves are too ephemeral to carry the weight of the conclusions.

Comments

That goes past my level of obsession...

Regardless of the broader or narrower calculus involved, the N.C ad strikes me as a tad bit low. They're slamming two candidates because of their endorsement of Obama, which endorsement is bad because of Obama's association with Wright. If the candidates themselves had such a relationship with Wright, fair game, but the additional remove kind of leaves me with a bad taste.

I agree with Danube on the substance of the ad. Guilt by association is dicey enough; guilt by association with an association is really pushing it. This may be the reason all the national pundits are assuming that the ad isn't really about the governor's race after all.

Allow me to dissent from this conventional wisdom. Obviously, attacking both Democrats in advance of a Democratic primary isn't going to hurt either of them in the primary itself. It may depress the vote slightly (or significantly if it causes large numbers of independents to vote in the Republican primary instead) but at the end of the day, it gives no one a reason to vote for Moore over Perdue or vice-versa, which is all that is really at stake in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. It won't help or hurt the Presidential candidates, either. A GOP ad bashing Obama certainly won't help Hillary; if anything it will hurt her by signaling to the moonbats that Obama is the candidate the eeevil Republicans hate more.

No, this is intended to influence the general election, at the gubernatorial level, and nothing else. NC hasn't backed a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1976 and let's face it, we aren't about to start now. The NC GOP knows this, so they're trying to get the two races linked as closely as possible in voters' minds. They're singling out Obama because they're betting he'll be the nominee, but if they lose that bet, no matter: if Hillary gets the nod the Republican gubernatorial candidate can always say Moore/Perdue is even more liberal than her given that he/she supported her even more liberal opponent back in the primary.

I don't know if the ad will succeed or fail, but I do know that McCain should shut his piehole and mind his own fantastic business. This does not concern him.

Rush is blasting McCain on his NC ad remarks. Asked by Shep Smith what was wrong with the ad, McCain said something like "It introduced race". Rush said McCain should have to explain what he meant. Since the ad didn't feature Wright's race conspiracies, but his G-D America comment, I think McCain is against any negative ad.

McCain went further and calling "on both sides" to reject 527 ads. Rush points out Soros $40M to "that squirt David Brock" to produce ads against McCain, thanks to McCain-Feingold. Rush didn't mention the estimated $1 billionunion attack ad plan. This is so depressing.

McCain is playing to the middle. But there may be something else going on. I liked Geraghty's takes here and here - would anyone outside of NC have even heard/seen these ads if McCain hadn't jumped in? Now they are being replayed and discussed all over the country.

Geraghty: "One guy walks the walk, the other guy just talks the talk. And the frustrated independents, exhausted from nasty politics, will notice this."

I think there's going to be an avalanche of nasty anti-McCain ads, for too many to expect the Obama the beneficiary to denounce. Negative ads work, but the "noble" McCain won't stoop so low. He can proudly sing "I Did It My Way" and hold his head high as it's inexorably sawed off.

"Are we to avoid all ads which may, in some people's heads, remind them (as if they need reminding) that Barack Obama is black, even if the ads themselves are unobjectionable on their face? Is this why McCain is more forward-leaning on Bill Ayers-- that he's white whereas Wright is (sorta) black? I appreciate the balancing act here, and that he would like to run a "positive" campaign (except, of course, where he's decided a negative issue is "legitimate"). But this frequent imputation of the worst and crudest motives to his fellow Republicans grows wearying."?

What they didn't mention at all is that the North Carolina GOP ad is intended to help Hillary in the May 6 primary. I mean, if the NC GOP really wanted the ad to help McCain, wouldn't they be running this ad in October or November? This is clearly an attempt to play the race and the Wright card against Obama in the hopes of hurting him in the Democratic Primary. Which suggests that there are at least some Republicans out there who still think Obama is the more formidable general election candidate.

Except this is the internet age by denouncing it he calls attention to it.

Faced with the coming tsunami of Dem negative ads against him, McCain will either have to ignore them or spend most of air time impersonating Yosemite Sam, stomping, scowling, and shouting, "Stop it, you varmits misguided fellows!"

While I don't particularly like the ad, I sure don't see it as "injecting race" into the campaign. Let's face it, the usual suspects are going to hurl that accusation any time Wright's name is mentioned, whether it's in the campaign of someone Obama has endorsed, or even Obama's own campaign. And that's just fine with me. In six months the wad is going to be so sick of hearing "race card" hollered about everything under the sun that it's going to harbor some pretty negative feelings about those doing the hollering. It's like the Muslims going cuckoo over cartoons.

I sure don't see it as "injecting race" into the campaign. Let's face it, the usual suspects are going to hurl that accusation any time Wright's name is mentioned
Or Obama's, for that matter.Guilt by association is dicey enough

In the case of Obama and Wright, it's not guilt by association, it's guilt of association. 'Guilt by association' smears a person for an act committed by someone with whom he shares a completely unrelated and innocuous connection. With Wright and Obama, the connection itself is the issue.

I looked around at a few Airstream sites and a lot of the ones for sale are "vintage," which as near as I can tell would suit us just fine. But my level-headed bride asked why the hell we would buy one, and what would we do with it when we were home (good question because of zoning in our town). So we quickly decided that when the time comes we'll rent or lease. Anybody have any insights on those options?

OT: a guy got killed by a shark this morning up the road from here. I'm now hearing that it was a great white, which is no surprise. Sure does dampen morale a bit around here.

I checked and the opportunities to rent are far greater in the West and South than they are here. In fact, I cannot even find an airstream dealer here, in Va or Md.I think Airstream Class B RVs are rare and it's hard to find rentals of them anywhere, but there are surely other good options.

I expect if you aren't using it often, renting is a good idea. (Have you seen the Base Camp? A very attractive alternative for campers/outdoors people which could surely fit in most people's garages.)

I have decided I can no longer support McCain. This is the 1st time in my 52 years I will not be voting. We are better off letting Dems control everything and fail. Perhaps we can find a better candidate in 2012

If you get a chance, post the name and number of a pizza joint. I'd like to pay for a few pies (and what are the odds that someone else in SoCal would try to claim pizzas reserved for 'HoosierHoops'?).

I strongly disagree that the Obama-Wright issue constitutes guilt by association. The problem is not what Wright says, he is a pastor in a church, it's a free country. The problem is Obama. HE is the guy who has accepted this doctrine of hate for 20 years. If you agree this doctrine is not compatible with someone who wants to be President, it's not guilt by association. The doctrine is fine if you are a preacher in a black church and you hate America and you think the system is the source of all evil. It might just not be ok for a President.

OK, despite the sudden onset of a splitting headache by paragraph somewhere in paragraph 9, perhaps I can help simplify at least one local part of your equations. You can eliminate any scenario which assumes a savvy Republican apparatus in the Tarheel state.

How can we take part in providing pizza, beer and a lot more for Jordan and his buddies? I'm late and had to skim through the posts above, so if there is an answer, an address or something, please repeat it and I'll check back. Deep dish? One of those ones with the melted cheese in the crust? Let us know.

I don't fault John McCain one bit, btw. There's a reason you're not going to see a Wright ad run by Camp Hillary in NC, regardless of what she might say on that score in a debate or on the stump. I get just as tired as any other southern Republican of being automatically tagged as a racist by the left, but I swear I think running that ad in NC, before Obama is even the Democratic nominee, is some seriously bad juju for McCain when he just finished reaching out to Selma. He had to disown that ad. Don't think the Obama folks would have either missed it or let it slide if he'd ignored it.

I don't see a problem with the ad, but I do think McCain should be able in general terms to set the tone he wants to his campaign.
However, in this case the NC Republicans claim this is really not about McCain, they are trying to tie Obama to the local candidates for Governor and Senate. I think we are going to get into real trouble if we buy into the theory that every ad featuring Obama is "bringing race into it" because Obama is black. By caving in now, it will be harder to run any hard hitting ads against him later.

I think we're also going to get into trouble if we try to pretend that NC Carolina Repbublicans don't have any racist baggage to deal with. In my experience, state Republicans have been positively obtuse about growing their constituency. There's a reason we've got a huge contingent of folks who vote Republican in national elections and Democrat for everything else. State Republicans trying to hitch a ride on the federal contest could easily end up hurting McCain more than helping local pols. I certainly don't see putting some distance between the two doing McCain any harm.

I strongly disagree that the Obama-Wright issue constitutes guilt by association. The problem is not what Wright says, he is a pastor in a church, it's a free country. The problem is Obama. HE is the guy who has accepted this doctrine of hate for 20 years.

In other words, it's not guilt by association, it's guilt by association. In the case of the specific association between Wright and Obama, I think it's a fair point, which is why I described guilt by association generally as "dicey" and not as "always wrong." In this case, though, the ad seeks to smear Richard More and Beverly Perdue, two individuals who probably haven't met Wright, let alone sat in his church for 20 years. Might as well go after Kevin Bacon next.

I have decided I can no longer support McCain. This is the 1st time in my 52 years I will not be voting. We are better off letting Dems control everything and fail. Perhaps we can find a better candidate in 2012

"I think we're also going to get into trouble if we try to pretend that NC Carolina Republicans don't have any racist baggage to deal with."

So the answer is to give Obama a pass on the fact he accepted his pastor's racist rants for 20 years? And did NC Republicans have more racist baggage than NC Democrats in the past (re WV Sen. KKK Byrd? Why is this relevant?

"There's a reason we've got a huge contingent of folks who vote Republican in national elections and Democrat for everything else."

You think this is due to racism?? or is it because all politics are local, and maybe Democrats are seen to be able to best deliver the pork?

"So the answer is to give Obama a pass on the fact he accepted his pastor's racist rants for 20 years?"

Not at all. I think Wright is a big problem for Obama. But this ad tags Perdue & Moore as Wright acolytes. How do we know that? Because these two Democrats endorsed Obama, which makes them too extreme for North Carolina. Which makes 90% of black North Carolinian Democrats (which is to say black North Carolinians) too extreme for North Carolina. This is just not smart politics. When it comes smack dab in the middle of McCain's black outreach tour I don't think a few degrees of separation is a bad idea. McCain may, in fact, genuinely object to guilt by association politics; I'm not convinced that's a political liability either, but having committed to his own brand of civil politics, he can ill afford to look like such ads have his blessing. It's not like they aren't going to be run by somebody else.

"You think this is due to racism?? or is it because all politics are local, and maybe Democrats are seen to be able to best deliver the pork?"

No, my own representive in the (national) House is a pork busting Republican. No, it's because local Republicans alienate anyone without extremely conservative social values and because they have tin ears. They also have racist baggage -- the days when that was not exactly a disqualifying factor are just not that long ago. In that not so distant past where I live, a Republican outfit did a mass mailing of flyers which were clearly designed to make it sound as though it were illegal to vote if you had moved since the last election. They later tried to claim it was just a helpful reminder about locating your new polling place -- after local media discovered that it had only been sent to overwhelmingly black zip codes. I would have voted for virtually any candidate who ran against Jesse Helms, because his campaign tactics were so blatantly divisive, although the climate has improved since then. And of course, we've got SC to thank for the most widely publicized example. I think McCain would have lost the state in 2000 anyway, but he was certainly stung by the patently racist black baby "rumor." I've never believed the Bush campaign was behind that push, but it certainly didn't emanate from Democratic quarters.

I'm not saying that the NC GOP is a racist party, or that there aren't any racist Democrats. I'm saying that the Republicans have the burden of proof here for a reason. IMO, that's just a political fact which it seems foolish to ignore and which can't simply be wished away. How to grapple with that fact, however, is considerably less clear, which is why I suggest cutting McCain some slack.

That said, a huge part of this political pretzel is the fact that Wright is a flagrant, hate mongering, racist of the first order himself. A lot of what he shouts out would, indeed, be offensive if he white. At the same time, I think huge numbers of white voters have been pretty shocked to discover just how many black Americans apparently buy into Wright's "liberation theology." This is not your daddy's racial divide, or your crazy uncle's either. Obama's willingness to let surrogates play the race card on his behalf, especially when it's clear he's already got a lock on most of the black vote, is going to come back to haunt him. The media may give him a pass on the basis of one speech, but I think most voters recognize lack of leadership when they see it. I think it troubles white voters, not because white voters are racists, but because they're not really sure that Obama isn't. Smooth talking, in this particular context, becomes a bug, not a feature. I'm not sure McCain, personally, needs to have a hand in playing up that uneasiness or should, either, from a purely political standpoint. I'm prepared sit back and let him thread that needle as best he sees fit -- for the moment anyway!

Not IMO. It shows Perdue & Moore supporting a candidate with views like Wright's.

While I don't care for this ad, the debate over it is helping the MSM establish that any criticism of BLT, Wright or Obama is implicit racism. Don't see much bashing McCain over this, the opposition is to making it a race card.

Except this is the internet age by denouncing it he calls attention to it.

There's the rub. If his denouncing the ad is a cynical act designed to draw attention to the rather strange life story of the leading Dem candidate, then I support it. The mental balance of the President is fair game, and anyone who believes in BLT (unless as a tasty snack) deserves scrutiny. And while I don't like dishonest campaigning in general, this is probably acceptable child psychology aimed at the clearly hostile media.

If, however, it's another self-serving attempt to designate a subject off-limits that just happens to cover weaknesses in his own resume (e.g., campaign finance reform after Keating, SwiftBoating after his own collaboration issues, and now Wright after Hagee), then it's just plain wrong. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the more the better.

I'm saying that the Republicans have the burden of proof here for a reason.

But since that's unprovable . . . Luckily one doesn't have to prove oneself perfectly unbiased to exercise the franchise. I suspect I'm not the only one who finds the cries of "racism" (or endless analysis of the "Bradley effect") tiresome. I also think it's risible to claim the least qualified candidate in recent memory is being disadvantaged by race, when the only logical conclusion is the opposite.

JMH, could you explain to me why McCain's objection to this ad is consistent with his demand that O reject the Hamas endorsement?Isn't that also tarring O by association ? We've no reason to think O sought this endorsement..

I'm afraid I wasn't clear. I was specifically referring to the Republican party in North Carolina. Saying that you can't prove a negative doesn't make the image problem go away. Republicans generally, IMO, bear no such burden.

On the national stage, I think the Obama crowd played the race card first, with the entirely disingenuous MLK/LBJ complaint, which Obama could easily have brought to a screeching halt. They've been playing it ever since, and people had started noticing right about the time the Wright video came out. As Captain Ed put it, that was like a drill to the brain, and I think Obama's already paying for it, without even beginning to make it go away. I certainly don't blame Repblicans for that! On the national stage, I think race is an integral part of his appeal, an advantage he appears to be bungling.

Clarice: Nope, I can't. I wasn't trying to put forward a unified theory of McCain, just commenting on whether it was or wasn't a good idea for McCain to distance himself from the NC ad, and whether the ad was a savvy move by state Republicans.

Ok so we have firmly established that the ad is not racist (we know that for sure now that the NYT says it is). It points out that the guy the Dem candidates for Governor and Senate are supporting for President is at least acquiescent of some pretty radical positions. So I really don't get the objection to it, neither from McCain or JHM. If McCain had kept his mouth shut, I bet this ad would have been gauged as damm effective, and still might be.

IMO the primary problem is establishing a low threshold for anybody to be called a racist. At that national level it's not good to say "well down here they can't say squat because they really are er um ... "

What can I say? The NC party has image problems, and a history to overcome; they lose a lot of elections, and I don't think the Wright ad is going to improve their odds. Folks can counter that opinion with their own ideas about what they think voters ought to take away from the ad in question, or with how they read it themselves, but I don't see what that has to do with my observations.

"At that national level it's not good to say 'well down here they can't say squat because they really are er um ... '"

In an ideal world, maybe presidential candidates would deliver precisely the same message regardless of the venue, but let's not pretend that state by state tailoring is something new. John McCain is actually willing to pan ethanol in Iowa and tell Ohio that the factory ain't coming back, so he's already got better marks than most.

When blacks are voting en bloc for Obama, race is an issue, and a black pastor spouting liberation theology is certainly racially fraught. You may not like it, but there's a double edged sword here which it's riskier to use in one state than it might be in another. Folks can shout shame on Dems for stirring the pot, but knowing that they will is part of the risk you take. So is knowing that it would be controversial regardless. In any case, when asked about the ad, I certainly don't think McCain has any obligation to defend it. I also happen to think that if the ad were aimed directly at Obama in the national election, it would be less problematic, but I'll leave that thought for another day.

No, boris, that's just not what I'm saying. Simply put, I'm saying that if your organzation has a racist history, it's a good idea to be careful about how you handle racial content -- if you want to win elections. Pretending there's no racial content in black liberation theology is not where I'd start.

if you want to win elections. Pretending there's no racial content in black liberation theology is not where I'd start

That doesn't register. What you are saying might not be what I'm hearing.

Perhaps you want to criticize NC Rebubs for violating their race probation, but the incident you are scolding them for gets authenticated as racism in the process.

What is important here? Getting them to stop using Wright because they may not have pure hearts, or the perception of purity? Not to me. I don't care what is in their hearts or how it looks to anybody else in NC. When it gets established that talking about Wright is racism then everybody else in the country has to shut up about it just so those bad ol' Reps in NC get a good scolding.

From instapundit:
" Reviews from the Rightosphere aren't much better: "I supported Roberts when I opposed him." Plus this: "He called Wright a 'legitimate' campaign issue, which will seem rather shocking to the New York Times, the McCain campaign, and others who have demanded an end to the North Carolina GOP’s television ad.. . . . Obama sounded a lot less convincing when it came to responding to the William Ayers controversy."